What are the odds he got paid off?
Did he get paid?
- Thread starter wvfarrier
- Start date
When Glocks first came out they had dozens of the same type of bullshit lawsuits. Guns mysteriously fired when poorly trained cops tried to clean them loaded or wandered around with their fingers on the trigger. The end result was the "New York Trigger" for Glocks. It gave them that lovely 12-15 pound trigger pull that keeps these "professionals " from hurting themselves.
I would say pretty good. However, good luck finding the proof.What are the odds he got paid off?
Zero.What are the odds he got paid off?
Keeping the finger on the trigger is 10000x more common than dropping a pistol at just the right angle to initiate a discharge. The voluntary upgrade program fixed the drop problem.
Someone making a big mistake and covering it up by blaming the pistol, so typical.
Someone making a big mistake and covering it up by blaming the pistol, so typical.
That drop test was addressed years ago, and a voluntary program was setup if you thought you were prone to dropping your pistol in that exact orientation. The pistol had already passed all other military and strict California drop tests. Now it passes that one too.
This is a quote from the sig article: "
Mr. Berrios voluntarily dismissed his action against SIG SAUER admitting in court filed documents that his P320 pistol has no defects and does not discharge without a trigger pull."
As can be seen in the video I posted earlier, Sig 320s can indeed fire without a trigger pull.
And, as per Brandon Herrera's latest Sig video, it was common knowledge in SIG engineering circles that the 320 was not drop safe even during development.
What happened was Sig bid on the m17 MHS contract at cost and relied on the hype and resultant civillian sales making the profit. It is very hard to make profit and keep a contract that Glock was actively disputing the awarding of when you openly admit your firearm design is defective, dangerous, and that you knew it was not drop safe.
Instead, Sig decided to double down and push out a defective product anyway. Or at the very least they didn't listen to the concerns of their engineers.
"Vaccines are safe and effective"
We have signedconfessions I mean proof
It also begs the question: "If the police are so poorly trained as many claim, how come this doesn't happen with other manufacturers"
We have signed
It also begs the question: "If the police are so poorly trained as many claim, how come this doesn't happen with other manufacturers"
Quite the opposite, in fact.
"Glock Leg" was a thing long before the P320 ever debuted.
Are you the guy who got mad that he was, “doxxed” on here, after telling people who you are and where you work?Jupyter Notebook Viewer
nbviewer.org
Please show your work.
Viral Video Of DEA Agent Shooting Self In Thigh May Have Hurt, But Didn't Violate Privacy
After a DEA agent shot himself in the leg during a gun safety presentation, video of the incident went viral. The agent sued the DEA for violating his privacy by releasing the video, but he lost his appeal on Tuesday.
www.forbes.com
Ind. police chief accidentally shoots self at gun shop
'It was pure carelessness on my part,' said chief, who was treated for a flesh wound.
www.usatoday.com
Corrections officer shoots himself in thigh
Reached to pick his .40-caliber Glock handgun out of its holster when it discharged
www.corrections1.com
Arkansas cop sues Glock after shooting himself in the foot with pistol
Larry Jones, a police officer from Cherry Valley, Arkansas, shot himself in the foot as he was in a local shooting range trying to outfit his Glock 19C pistol with a tactical light.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Cop Sues Holster Company After Accidentally Shooting Herself in Hip
A Utah police detective has sued the manufacturer of a gun holster, claiming a design defect resulted in her accidentally shooting herself and causing lasting damage.
www.insideedition.com
The plural of "anecdote" is not data.
You are shilling pretty hard and not answering the question.
You claim to have the answer. Prove it.
Nice misdirect though.
You are shilling pretty hard and not answering the question.
You claim to have the answer. Prove it.
Nice misdirect though.
IIRC. This one was because his keys were jammed in the holster. The keys pulled up on the trigger when he bent over.
I could possibly be wrong.
Well since you are apparently not that proficient in math and statistics as you claimed.
IF there is no difference between the the Sig P320 and other Striker fired pistols AND
IF you have the data the as you claim
THEN I linked a standard statistical method with step by step instructions for you to take YOUR data and show us that we are in fact just seeing things.
Instead you brought up an unrelated topic (People who doxxed me) in an attempt to poison the well of the argument.
Basically in Bear pit terms: You just got caught sucking Sig's dick.
I even showed you how to make your point
Instead you link a bunch of stories. And made a personal attack on me. I got big boy pants, I can take it. You can find anything on the internet. I can go and find pictures of you fucking a goat..
What you lack is any rigor in your methods and so while the howler monkeys may scream and hoot, anyone with two brain cells knows you're full of shit.
I'm just here to emphasize it.
Now why don't you go shit on a former members grave again. (See I can poison the well too!)
Go back and read my original answer to your original question, and then tell me how anything you've posted after makes any sense at all.
Not only do you suck at math, your reading comprehension seems lacking as well.
Let's go REAL SLOW so you don't get lost
Its quite apparent there are 2 groups of people
(1) P320 is safe (or was unsafe but fixed): cannot CURRENTLY be fired w/o pulling the trigger
(2) P320 remains unsafe: Can be fired w/o pulling the trigger.
Since my comprehension is up to snuff, I'm making the edumacated guess you belong to group 1. In fact you are the leading poster for group 1 to the point of being insulting towards group 2. Its the bear pit, nothing wrong. I just noticed you have a VERY STRONG opinion on it.
I pointed out the corporate America has a history of hiding the truth for the bottom line and/or greater good so that some of the evidence presented is suspect. I.E. I was addressing the original point of "Was he paid off" with my opinion of "Pretty Likely" and brought my argument of the anecdote that it appears these accidents are happening more often with the P320 than other similar pistols. I also subtly hinted at an analysis that would remedy this.
You responded that "Glock Leg was a thing" I do not dispute this. In fact I explicitly linked to an analysis method that would provide much more concrete evidence of whether the rates had changed or not.
You then made 5 separate posts (reminder post count no longer counts toward being able to post in WTB section) with individual stories about accidental discharges. No one disputes that AD happen with other guns. The point was doe they happen more, less, or the same with the P320. It appears to me that they happen MORE.
But that also per-supposes that being "More" means that its because they may go off without a trigger pull, which is not necessarily so. This being the bear pit and a modicum for intellectual debate, I felt that point may be too subtle as you didn't even catch the "plural of anecdote is not data" aka Listing a bunch of stories does not add (or subtract) from your argument, it still lacks rigor.
Once again I pointed out that you can conclusively (at least to a reasonable mathematician/engineer/statistician) make your case by filling in your "Data" (I being sarcastic here making fun of you for not actually having the data you claim, but instead just a google search of stories) to the linked text which is actually a very layman's introduction to Bayesian Statistics, of which this is a classic problem "Did the rate of Accidental Discharge increase with the Adoption of the Sig P320" Its a full analogy to the linked section on tweet frequency example located in the text.
In addition, I noted your attempt to divert attention towards the negative sentiment towards me. (aka "poisoning the well") This is a standard intellectual fallacy of trying to inflame the argument by bringing in details with no relevance that can bring about negative sentiment towards me. Yes, I claimed several members of the forum attempted to doxx me several years ago. How is that relevant to THIS discussion? Because I brought it up?
I'm often accused of being an arrogant bastard. I am an arrogant bastard. I know as soon as I post several of my groupies will lose their shit and go after anything I say. And like fish in a barrel, you followed to a T. I literally gave you the tools to make your argument, instead you launch an all out assault of verbal garbage and ignore the gift I handed you. I told you how to make your case. But you are so stubborn and infantile in your reaction you fell hook line and sinker.
You never "showed" the P320 was safe. For that matter now one has conclusively showed the P320 is "unsafe" We have a lot of anecdotes but no data.
So your OPINION is that it is safe and to further that opinion you offer as proof, I am an asshole.
Yup. I am a Grade A troll asshole. But that has nothing to do with whether the P320 is safe. The way to analyze is there.
To me it is just very telling to no one (not even sig) has produced an analysis that is bread and butter 1st year statistics analysis. That to me says a lot. Its not proof of anything. It just says a lot to me with my background. And proves that yeah, I may be an arrogant asshole, who can predict bear pit behavior to a very precise degree.
Its just my background
In geology
Let's go REAL SLOW so you don't get lost
Its quite apparent there are 2 groups of people
(1) P320 is safe (or was unsafe but fixed): cannot CURRENTLY be fired w/o pulling the trigger
(2) P320 remains unsafe: Can be fired w/o pulling the trigger.
Since my comprehension is up to snuff, I'm making the edumacated guess you belong to group 1. In fact you are the leading poster for group 1 to the point of being insulting towards group 2. Its the bear pit, nothing wrong. I just noticed you have a VERY STRONG opinion on it.
I pointed out the corporate America has a history of hiding the truth for the bottom line and/or greater good so that some of the evidence presented is suspect. I.E. I was addressing the original point of "Was he paid off" with my opinion of "Pretty Likely" and brought my argument of the anecdote that it appears these accidents are happening more often with the P320 than other similar pistols. I also subtly hinted at an analysis that would remedy this.
You responded that "Glock Leg was a thing" I do not dispute this. In fact I explicitly linked to an analysis method that would provide much more concrete evidence of whether the rates had changed or not.
You then made 5 separate posts (reminder post count no longer counts toward being able to post in WTB section) with individual stories about accidental discharges. No one disputes that AD happen with other guns. The point was doe they happen more, less, or the same with the P320. It appears to me that they happen MORE.
But that also per-supposes that being "More" means that its because they may go off without a trigger pull, which is not necessarily so. This being the bear pit and a modicum for intellectual debate, I felt that point may be too subtle as you didn't even catch the "plural of anecdote is not data" aka Listing a bunch of stories does not add (or subtract) from your argument, it still lacks rigor.
Once again I pointed out that you can conclusively (at least to a reasonable mathematician/engineer/statistician) make your case by filling in your "Data" (I being sarcastic here making fun of you for not actually having the data you claim, but instead just a google search of stories) to the linked text which is actually a very layman's introduction to Bayesian Statistics, of which this is a classic problem "Did the rate of Accidental Discharge increase with the Adoption of the Sig P320" Its a full analogy to the linked section on tweet frequency example located in the text.
In addition, I noted your attempt to divert attention towards the negative sentiment towards me. (aka "poisoning the well") This is a standard intellectual fallacy of trying to inflame the argument by bringing in details with no relevance that can bring about negative sentiment towards me. Yes, I claimed several members of the forum attempted to doxx me several years ago. How is that relevant to THIS discussion? Because I brought it up?
I'm often accused of being an arrogant bastard. I am an arrogant bastard. I know as soon as I post several of my groupies will lose their shit and go after anything I say. And like fish in a barrel, you followed to a T. I literally gave you the tools to make your argument, instead you launch an all out assault of verbal garbage and ignore the gift I handed you. I told you how to make your case. But you are so stubborn and infantile in your reaction you fell hook line and sinker.
You never "showed" the P320 was safe. For that matter now one has conclusively showed the P320 is "unsafe" We have a lot of anecdotes but no data.
So your OPINION is that it is safe and to further that opinion you offer as proof, I am an asshole.
Yup. I am a Grade A troll asshole. But that has nothing to do with whether the P320 is safe. The way to analyze is there.
To me it is just very telling to no one (not even sig) has produced an analysis that is bread and butter 1st year statistics analysis. That to me says a lot. Its not proof of anything. It just says a lot to me with my background. And proves that yeah, I may be an arrogant asshole, who can predict bear pit behavior to a very precise degree.
Its just my background
In geology
I’m not fucking reading all that.
Has it happened with other guns? Yes. Will it happen again? Also yes. You can’t refute that.
Similar threads
